Enclosure No. 4_Evaluation Criteria.docx

Attachment – Technical Evaluation Criteria ANL-830 September 9, 2025 Evaluation Criteria BioNanoProbe-II Vacuum Chamber System 09-09-2025

I. Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Argonne National Laboratory approved Procurement policies based on the Evaluation Criteria.

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Laboratory shall select for an award based on the principles of Best Value, a tradeoff between the highest technical merit with the lowest proposed cost. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed cost if the perceived technical advantages of a higher proposed cost proposal justify the higher proposed cost.

III. Evaluation Criteria of Technical Proposal The Laboratory will use the following evaluation criteria to evaluate technical merit. These are listed in descending order of importance:

1. Technical approach

2. Record of past performance

3. Production Capability / Capacity

4. Organizational and Management Approach

CRITERION 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Basis for Evaluation:

The Laboratory will determine if the Offerors proposal is feasible, efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, while identifying any risk for performing the scope under the Base Scope. The evaluation will include evaluating the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal, including the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and methodologies, to ensure successful delivery within the project schedule and compliance with the Laboratory’s requirements as provided in the technical documents.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

The Offeror shall provide a compliance matrix to demonstrate their ability to meet each factor described from the Statement of Work which is made part of this Solicitation. The matrix shall describe the factors being reviewed, and the Offeror’s proof that this factor is being adhered to.

CRITERION 2 – RECORD OF PAST PERFORMANCE

Basis for Evaluation:

Each Offeror shall be evaluated on their past performance on previous contracts with similar scope and complexity, assessing their ability to meet quality and safety standards, assessing the ability to meet quality standards, manage project risks, on-time deliveries and/or schedule adherence, communication and coordination with customer staff, consistency in performance with technical execution of scope, and cost control as documented through past performance information gathered from customer references or government database. Reference-checks may be conducted.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation A list of three contracts in the past five years that have been awarded to the Offeror of approximately the same dollar magnitude as Offeror’s proposal, that have been completed and are as similar as possible in nature to the requirements covered by the technical specifications. The list should provide the following information for each contract:

· Contract Title

· Contract Amount

· Date of Award

· Client’s Name and Address

· Name of Client’s Contract(s) regarding performance evaluation

· Telephone/E-mail numbers for Client Contract(s)

· Value Engineering Experience

· Experience in improving project Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Operability, and Constructability

· Technical approach including innovation

• Ability to meet contract deadlines

CRITERION 3 - PRODUCTION CAPABILITY/CAPACITY

Basis for Evaluation:

The Laboratory will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to manufacture/fabricate items as described in the SOW and Technical Documents. The Offeror will be evaluated based on how they prioritize the work and their ability for quick turnaround times that adheres to the schedule identified in the RFP. Also, will evaluate if they have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities to obtain them.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

· A selected list of testing equipment that is appropriate to the nature of the items to be manufactured and describe capabilities.

· Provide your current manufacturing capacity for the next 8 months (in percentages by current month)

· Descriptions of manufacturing facilities and equipment to include part-handling equipment (cranes, etc.), machining and fabrication equipment, cleaning equipment and inspection capabilities (NDE, dimensional, others as required)

· Evidence of having a program in place that assures material separation (e.g., avoidance of cross-contamination between stainless and carbon steel)

· Description of how the Offeror will prioritize and commit to turn around once releases are authorized. For example, please provide a sample commitment of how a small fab job would be prioritized and how quickly it turned around. How would prioritization be handled if the shop is at 80-90% capacity?

CRITERION 4 - ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Basis for Evaluation:

The Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to manage, staff, and effectuate a sound management plan to meet the requirements of the SOW, to apply and direct resources to control cost and to distribute tasks to efficiently, productively, and effectively meet deadlines. The efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness of the proposed management plan will also be evaluated.

Offeror to Provide for Evaluation:

The Offeror shall include a narrative discussion of their organization and management plan. The proposal shall describe strategies such as the following:

· Plans to obtain and/or retain necessary resources to perform the required services.

· Controls and monitoring procedures for maintaining quality control, and project schedules.

· Plans for communication and timely response to program and project directions.

· Function and responsibilities of any proposed sub-tier subcontractors.

· Project lead and qualifications, that will be working with the Laboratory team after award.

· Project manager defined and his/her role in the project provided.

· Expected frequency of communication between Offeror and the Laboratory image1.png